BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1867
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1867 (Steinorth)
As Amended March 31, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Judiciary |10-0 |Mark Stone, Wagner, | |
| | |Alejo, Chau, Chiu, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | Cristina Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Maienschein, | |
| | |Ting | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Permits certain seals and signatures that are
electronically stored, faxed, or photocopied to be
self-authenticating, and allows the use of certain
electronically stored, faxed, or photocopied documents to verify
the content of a writing. Specifically, this bill expands the
definition of "electronically digitized copy" of records of
criminal convictions, enacted by the Legislature in 2013 (SB 378
AB 1867
Page 2
(Block), Chapter 150, Statutes of 2013) to include "a copy that
is made by scanning, photographing, or otherwise exactly
reproducing a document, is stored or maintained in a digitized
format, and bears an electronic signature or watermark unique to
the entity responsible for certifying the document."
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that evidence of a statement made outside of court is
hearsay and inadmissible unless there is an exception.
2)Requires a writing to be authenticated before it is received
into evidence and before secondary evidence is used to verify
its content.
3)Creates a presumption that a seal is genuine and its use
authorized if it purports to be the seal of one of a specified
entity in the United States, of countries recognized by the
United States, or a notary public in the United States.
4)Creates a presumption that a signature is genuine and its use
authorized if it purports to be the signature of an employee
of the United States, an employee of a public entity in the
United States, or a notary public in the United State, so long
as the individual is acting within his or her official
capacity.
5)Allows an official record of conviction certified in
accordance with Evidence Code Section 1530(a), or an
electronically digitized copy thereof, to be admitted into
evidence to prove the commission, attempted commission, or
solicitation of a criminal offense, prior conviction, service
AB 1867
Page 3
of a prison term, or other act, condition, or event recorded
by the record and defines "electronically digitized copy" to
mean a copy that is made by scanning, photographing, or
otherwise exactly reproducing a document, is stored or
maintained in a digitized format, and bears an electronic
signature or watermark unique to the entity responsible for
certifying the document. (Evidence Code Section 452.5.)
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS: The sponsor, the California District Attorneys
Association (CDAA), asserts that current law regarding the use
and admissibility of "electronically digitized copies" of
records of criminal convictions, enacted by the Legislature in
2013 (SB 378 (Block), Chapter 150, Statutes of 2013) is overly
restrictive and therefore is not widely used.
SB 378 amended subdivision of Evidence Code Section 452.5(b)
(with changes to then-existing law in bold) as follows:
(b)(1) An official record of conviction certified in
accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 1530, or an
electronically digitized copy thereof, is admissible under
Section 1280 to prove the commission, attempted commission,
or solicitation of a criminal offense, prior conviction,
service of a prison term, or other act, condition, or event
recorded by the record.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "electronically
digitized copy" means a copy that is made by scanning,
photographing, or otherwise exactly reproducing a document,
is stored or maintained in a digitized format, and bears an
electronic signature or watermark unique to the entity
responsible for certifying the document.
AB 1867
Page 4
According to CDAA, "This means that in order to take advantage
of this new law, the court clerk's office would have to affix an
electronic signature or watermark to the electronically
certified document. Clerk's offices around the state have not
yet been able to take advantage of this procedure to produce
electronic records of convictions."
In order to address this concern, this bill amends the
definition of "electronically digitized copy" in Section
452.5(b)(2), as follows:
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, "electronically
digitized copy" means a copy that is made by scanning,
photographing, or otherwise exactly reproducing a document,
is stored or maintained in a digitized format, and meets
one of the following requirements:
(A) The copy bears an electronic signature or watermark
unique to the entity responsible for certifying the
document.
(B) The document that is copied is an official record of
conviction certified in accordance with subdivision (a) of
Section 1530 which is transmitted by the clerk of the
superior court in a manner showing that the copy was
prepared and transmitted by that clerk of the superior
court. A seal, signature, or other indicia of the court
shall constitute adequate showing.
The proposed language, limited to certified copies of criminal
convictions, will provide more flexibility for electronic copies
of those records to be transmitted from courts and allow those
AB 1867
Page 5
copies to be admitted into evidence while ensuring that the
actual custodian of the record has certified that the certified
copy, as well as the electronic copy of that record, accurately
reflects the content of the original writing.
Analysis Prepared by:
Alison Merrilees / JUD. / (916) 319-2334 FN:
0002680